Is divx 5 (pro) perfect to encode or not?

[madcat_ninjamaster]

I'm having the same problem as people in the forum with this new codec. Having to encode with a problem "The blocky picture".

Have anyone encourage with no problem encoding using divx 5 codec. If so...proof and what is your solution and guide to solve the problem if possible.

Quote:
Divx 5 is a new improvement codec!

Question:
Fact or false?

Madcat:devil:

[chris25fr]

no problem with low bitrate (642 kbits) and middle resolution (540x220). Avisynth,fast recompress + bframes + gmc .

no use qpel and psychomodel .

[dragoman]

Hi,

Never had a problem with the codec yet, done about 7 movies with it so far.

I enable all the new features, b-frames, gmc, qpel, with Normal Psycho-visual setting.

Encodes come out great, no artifacts or distortions. The encoding is a little slow because of the new features, but I can live with that.

dragoman

[theReal]

to be on the safe side, I don't use gmc or q-pel, I only use b-frames (I had problems with normal psy, q-pel and gmc are not worth the risk, I think).
You also have to obey height/16 width/16 to avoid pink lines and artefacts.

[ungeraynrand]

so far divx5 has been perfect for me... well, other than the fact that you shouldn't use Qpel and u should make the resolution divisible by 16, everything works. and it now has complete fileszie predictabiliyt (within 2 to 3 megs....).

Quality-wise its the best looking yet. very sharp and nice.

and bframes = wonderful!

[Mechannibal]

For those of you that say Divx 5 is great, what other codecs have you used to compare it against?

[theReal]

I compared it to DivX 4.12 and to Gknot/Nandub Divx 3.11 (of which I liked 3.11 slightly better).

First, I was a little pissed by the adware, by artefacts and other problems. Now that I know how to avoid all these problems, I think Divx 5 pro is amazing. The picture seems to be a little sharper than 4.12 - that was the main reason I still found Nandub SBC better than Divx 4.12. Then, b-frames make it possible to make movies smaller quite a bit at full visual quality.
I'm going to abandon Gknot/Nandub now and make all my encodes with divx 5.

[cabal]

i think its very slow - i lost 3-4 fps ... the new encoding options aren't so great - in fact i cannot see any improvement ; since version 5 i am on with xvid :)

[Uli]

Originally posted by cabal
since version 5 i am on with xvid :)

...me too ;)

greetz, Uli

[Thermomonkey]

This is most probably because your using a hacked/cracked codec of divx5 pro. Ditch it, and get the propper version, then block the ads with your firewall.

:cool:

[theReal]

This is most probably because your using a hacked/cracked codec of divx5 pro. Ditch it, and get the propper version, then block the ads with your firewall."This" - what?
"your" - who?

Sorry, I can't find any problems in this thread that could be related to the hacked version of Divx 5...

[Thermomonkey]

I was referring to the orignal post.

[theReal]

Sorry, my fault!

[ChAoS Overlord]

Originally posted by ungeraynrand
complete fileszie predictabiliyt (within 2 to 3 megs....).

How? please tell me!

[rui]

I can confirm ungeraynrand words. I too have very good results in file size predictability with divx5 pro.
I always use Gnot to calculate to video bitrate. First i do the audio, then the credits file, then input the both files sizes in the bitrate tab, then check overhead, with vbr-mp3, then take the video bitrate gnot gives me to the codec configuration, and all goes well.

[madcat_ninjamaster]

Divx 5 pro could be alot of improvement. However increasing processor speed would be better. True?

I would like to know, does Divx 5 Pro work better with AMD processor or Intel.

Amd Xp +2001 just came out, I wouder how fast is the processor plus what's the fastest record people can rip a dvd film using divx codec.

Madcat:cool: